Confused

[silkamilkamonico]

So, what exactly were we this year?

Our offense was completely dominant for some games, and completely inept for others. We went from having the most explosive rushing attack during some games, to completely useless in others. Tebow looked like he was running a big play utterly explosive passing offense against the league's #1 defense at home where he struggled all year, to going something like 3-16 against one of the worst defenses in the NFL on the road where he has been very good.

Is our oline very good, or very bad? It's the polar opposite of consistent, so this is a legitimate question that needs to be asked.

Coaching? Is Dennis Allen a great DC? For as many good and interesting schemes that he has, he also has equally as many ****ups, and when teams are controlling our defense he seems very lost on what to change.

Our defense had a handful of games where it looked like the leagues best defense, and it also had a handful of games where it couldn't stop a high school team. What gives? Teams went from running at will, to not gaining an inch, to running at will again.

Pass rush? Outside of a handful of games, I was not impressed with Dumervil, especially at the end of the year. Von completely disappeared after his injury so he gets a pass, kind of. Ayers is a bright spot.

I have never watched a season unfold from a team that was so completely schizophrenic from week to week (more like 2-3 game stretches), and I am very confused on who we are and what we are going to be next year.

Anyone wanna take a stab on a realistic assessment of what kind of team we can be next year?

[wayninja]

We are 100% awesome. But there is only a 50% chance of that.

[NightTerror218]

i think it shows we made the best of what we had. I think we have a young team and some holes. I have high expectation for next year with this team. I think players should hit their stride who are in the 3rd or 4th season next year. I also think having an off season to work with coaches will help out a lot. I noticed that some of the top team this years are ones with lots of Vets (GB, NO, NYG, NE).

I expect to see the offense click a lot more. WRs should have less drops, Tebow should be more accurate, TEs should be better at blocks/receiving. OL should either be great or same. I expect Beadles/Walton/Franklin to be at their best. Full season to gel together and more experience.

Defense should have some new studs at LB and DB.

[KCL]

Not to be critical but Denver won the division only one game up on KC who finished in last place...so what does that tell you? You were better than KC by one game and the other 2 teams finished with the same record.

[wayninja]

Not to be critical but Denver won the division only one game up on KC who finished in last place...so what does that tell you? You were better than KC by one game and the other 2 teams finished with the same record.

It tells us that we are better than the chiefs. And raiders. And chargers.

Any questions?

[KCL]

Plus the Chiefs were without 2 key players..Charles and Berry.

[The Glue Factory]

What are we? A gut remodel after the demolitions are complete, that's what. It's a big friggin' mess that needs to be cleaned up and this was just year one of that process. A surprising result to the year, true; but a mess all the same.

I think it's going to take a good 5 years before the disaster of the past 5 years is totally removed. While that sounds like a long time, I think things will be steadily getting better rather than the opposite that we've had to witness. Unfortunately, like tonight, it's going to be painful for a few seasons.

[KCL]

It tells us that we are better than the chiefs. And raiders. And chargers.

Any questions?

LOL...Getting defensive???

[Dapper Dan]

...inconsistent.

[wayninja]

LOL...Getting defensive???

Did you see the game? There wasn't anything defensive about it.

[silkamilkamonico]

Not to be critical but Denver won the division only one game up on KC who finished in last place...so what does that tell you? You were better than KC by one game and the other 2 teams finished with the same record.

We won the division after starting out 1-4. Once we got rid of Kyle the cancer Orton, we went 8-5 with the youngest offense in the NFL including a nice playoff win. If it wasn't for Kyle Orton, we would have probably went something like 10-6, or maybe even 11-7 including the final playoff game.

[KCL]

Did you see the game? There wasn't anything defensive about it.

Hell yes I watched the game...pretty boring as it was too one sided.
The Saints and 49ers game was a lot better to watch.

[The Glue Factory]

Did you see the game? There wasn't anything defensive about it.

It sure was offensive though! :puke:

[KCL]

We won the division after starting out 1-4. Once we got rid of Kyle the cancer Orton, we went 8-5 with the youngest offense in the NFL including a nice playoff win. If it wasn't for Kyle Orton, we would have probably went something like 10-6, or maybe even 11-7 including the final playoff game.

Meh you would have still lost to the Pats.

[wayninja]

Meh you would have still lost to the Pats.

Lol, you would have lost to the steelers.

[silkamilkamonico]

I think it's going to take a good 5 years before the disaster of the past 5 years is totally removed. While that sounds like a long time, I think things will be steadily getting better rather than the opposite that we've had to witness. Unfortunately, like tonight, it's going to be painful for a few seasons.

If it's going to take 5 years, then this season was an utter fluke, and outside guys like Miller, Ayers, DThomas, Clady, and Franklin, there probably won't be another player currently on the team that will be a Bronco in 5 years.

[silkamilkamonico]

Meh you would have still lost to the Pats.

Yes, but possibly in the AFCCG instead, assuming they made it there!

[KCL]

Lol, you would have lost to the steelers.

I don't think so...in the regular season...KC's defense was all over them..they beat us by 4 points and we had Tyler Palko pretending to be a QB in that game.Romeo benched him and lo and behold we beat the Packers!

[The Glue Factory]

If it's going to take 5 years, then this season was an utter fluke, and outside guys like Miller, Ayers, DThomas, Clady, and Franklin, there probably won't be another player currently on the team that will be a Bronco in 5 years.

I do think this year is something of a fluke. As the OP put forth, it was a very confusing year. But read my statement carefully, I said 5 years before the copious number of horrendous decisions are removed. I didn't say it was going to take that long to get good. Depending on what happens during the offseason, at this point I'm willing to bet we have another struggle to have a non-losing season but miss the post season.

Year one of the gut/remodel is done and we FINALLY got a good evaluation of what we have. Some good stuff, some bad; but at least we have stopped what was happening at the end of Shanny's tenure and all of McNumbnuts.

[silkamilkamonico]

Year one of the gut/remodel is done and we FINALLY got a good evaluation of what we have. Some good stuff, some bad; but at least we have stopped what was happening at the end of Shanny's tenure and all of McNumbnuts.

Aside from the bad decisions, I still think right now we are stuck with a coaching staff that has a very low ceiling and not the capacity to build something great.

[The Glue Factory]

Aside from the bad decisions, I still think right now we are stuck with a coaching staff that has a very low ceiling and not the capacity to build something great.

Agreed. But I think they'll lay a good foundation for the next coaching staff. I can't believe that Elway will be satisfied with another coach/QB combo like he and Reeves were. Especially with the rules favoring a passing offense so much more now than 30 years ago.

[wayninja]

I don't think so...in the regular season...KC's defense was all over them..they beat us by 4 points and we had Tyler Palko pretending to be a QB in that game.Romeo benched him and lo and behold we beat the Packers!

I stand corrected then. You DID lose to the steelers.

The packers are surely a feather in your cap as you look on from last place.

[wayninja]

Aside from the bad decisions, I still think right now we are stuck with a coaching staff that has a very low ceiling and not the capacity to build something great.

I disagree. I think the coaching staff did an awesome job rolling with the punches a string of changes threw at them. They showed us flashes of brilliance that after overhauling our offense and the changes Fox brought with Defense, proves the ceiling is a bit higher than they are being given credit for.

[SM19]

We were overachievers.

[KCL]

I stand corrected then. You DID lose to the steelers.

The packers are surely a feather in your cap as you look on from last place.

Did Denver beat the Packers? Nope...didn't think so!

[wayninja]

Did Denver beat the Packers? Nope...didn't think so!

No. Denver just won the division you came last place in. See how this is going? Not well for your chiefs.

I like you KC Lady, but you chose a bad time to pick a fight.

[KCL]

I stand corrected then. You DID lose to the steelers.

The packers are surely a feather in your cap as you look on from last place.

Yes we did lose to the Steelers by 4...like I said had Palko who isn't a QB and were without Charles..that would have helped to have him not only in that game but all season.

[wayninja]

Yes we did lose to the Steelers by 4...

I stopped reading here because it became irrelevant to continue.

[KCL]

No. Denver just won the division you came last place in. See how this is going? Not well for your chiefs.

I like you KC Lady, but you chose a bad time to pick a fight.

:lol: The Broncos barely won the division..but yeah they won..KC would have had a much better season with healthy players.

Pick a fight..hell I just responded to the thread and you quoted me..:laugh:

[KCL]

I stopped reading here because it became irrelevant to continue.

yeah ignore facts..that always helps...:lol:

[wayninja]

:lol: The Broncos barely won the division..but yeah they won..KC would have had a much better season with healthy players.

Pick a fight..hell I just responded to the thread and you quoted me..:laugh:

See... there you go again. The Broncos won the division. Better luck next year.

[KCL]

See... there you go again. The Broncos won the division. Better luck next year.

:lol:

[BeefStew25]

:lol:

Plus we aren't going through menopause.

[KCL]

Damn try to talk football and facts and some people can't handle it...I wasn't posting smack just facts....oh well...whatever!

[KCL]

Plus we aren't going through menopause.

:lol:

[BeefStew25]

You guys play tonight?

[wayninja]

Damn try to talk football and facts and some people can't handle it...I wasn't posting smack just facts....oh well...whatever!

'barely' isn't a fact, is a subjective qualifier. Nice try though.

Also, when you start a sentence with 'Not to be critical but...' you are being critical.

[KCL]

'barely' isn't a fact, is a subjective qualifier. Nice try though.

Also, when you start a sentence with 'Not to be critical but...' you are being critical.

Oh don't get all defensive..the thread asked a question.I pointed out a fact.I have given the Broncos and Tebow props for their season.

Go look in the "Don't blame Tebow thread" and see my post.I didn't start in on you..I only came back at you...no need for anyone to get personal but if they feel like they need to...whatever...it doesn't bother me.

[KCL]

Can't hate Tebow is what the thread is...not blame Tebow.

[BeefStew25]

Can't hate Tebow is what the thread is...not blame Tebow.

You quite possibly are the dumbest troll ever.

[KCL]

You quite possibly are the dumbest troll ever.

Oh that really hurts coming from you.

[Joel]

We are a young team. When Kuper's healthy, our offensive starters average age is 25.6. I haven't calculated it for our D, but with a rookie Sam, third year and rookie safety, rookie nickelback, third year and sixth year DEs, it's probably not much older. That's a mixed blessing: If most of those players become stars we're set for the next decade, but there's no way to know which is which right now, because the whole team's inconsistent.

We must expect that from a group so young. If I were Elway (which I'm not,) any healthy player not consistently playing well after 30+ starts would be lucky to stay on the roster. That would be bad news for Goodman, but also Bruton, Beadles and Walton. However, we're still rebuilding, even if it's going well; inconsistency is the price we paid when we chose to develop youth with things like trading Gaffney and Lloyd.

[BeefStew25]

Oh that really hurts coming from you.

1993, hatchet wound.

[wayninja]

Oh don't get all defensive..the thread asked a question.I pointed out a fact.I have given the Broncos and Tebow props for their season.

Go look in the "Don't blame Tebow thread" and see my post.I didn't start in on you..I only came back at you...no need for anyone to get personal but if they feel like they need to...whatever...it doesn't bother me.

And I'm just pointing out a fact. We are first and you are last. Don't get all defensive about it.

[KCL]

And I'm just pointing out a fact. We are first and you are last. Don't get all defensive about it.

Nope not defensive....I posted that fact in my first post in this thread.

[KCL]

1993, hatchet wound.



I have that posted under KCL....:lol:

[OaklandRaider]

The Broncos are a young team that overachieved this year, and took advantage of a weak division.

You guys have some solid pieces to build around, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Broncos take a big step back next year. I just think teams have a feel on how to defend Tebow now. He will have some great games like he did against Pittsburgh from time to time, but he will never be a consistent QB. And that's what you need to be consistently good in this league.

[wayninja]

Nope not defensive....I posted that fact in my first post in this thread.

Oh? Then let me suggest some changes to your first post:


Not to be critical but Denver won the division only one game up on KC who finished in last place...so what does that tell you? You were better than KC by one game and the other 2 teams finished with the same record.

Should be:


Not to be critical, but Denver won the division after falling into last place after 5 games, changed their QB and offensive structure, and still managed to clinch all the division tie-breakers. The other teams sucked it, hard, including the chiefs.

Now all is good.

[sneakers]

We benefited from a weak division.

[KCL]

Oh? Then let me suggest some changes to your first post:



Should be:



Now all is good.

Whatever makes you feel better.

[wayninja]

Whatever makes you feel better.

It does slightly. I'll feel better when we win the division again next year. Regardless of margin.

[KCL]

It does slightly. I'll feel better when we win the division again next year. Regardless of margin.

See there you go..a change in attitude is always good!!!!

[DenBronx]

Silk, this season was a whirlwind that's for sure. Very inconsistant and too conservative.

As for our QB. I know he can be something special as an NFL QB but it seems as if he is handicapped by the play calling. It's like they found the option worked on a few teams earlier in the year and then stuck with it even when it didnt make sense. McCoy needed to get Tebow involved in more screens, bootlegs and quick slants ect just to get him in rythym early and to help keep the drives alive. Tebow can be excellent as a deep ball threat or kill you with his legs if he has to but they need to concentrate on opening up the playbook and letting Tebow AUDIBLE when he feels the need. He looks frustrated at times like he wishes he could just do what he does best and they wont let him.

Our WR's. Look I like Decker but right now I'm not so sure he's even a #2 on most teams. DT has tons of potential but down the stretch he was getting alot of attention from defenses and you cant do it alone every game. Royal will make a nice play here and there but for the most part he doesnt show up, if anything he should remain the primary punt/kick returner. Bottom line is we need some serious talent at WR if we're going to expect Tebow to ever get the job done. Who in the heck is going to catch the ball??? Losing Brandon Llyod didnt help Tebow at all.

Safeties and Corners: They got handled all year. Bailey got burnt here and there simply because he cant do it all alone. When Dawkins was in and healthy our defense looked much more solid. In the offseason we are going to have to make some moves here and I think Dawkins has played his last game. Maybe we should have look at Darren Sharper just a little harder than we did, it would have helped us down the stretch. I think Reggie Nelson is a free agent.

I feel comfortable about our DTs and DEs. Ayers really did good this year and so did DJ but Mays wasnt really that smash mouth ILB that we needed at times. Possibly we draft a guy like Burflict from the Sun Devils.

McGahee. I love the guy and he's a huge reason we had the #1 rushing offense but I don't trust him to do what he did this year and for all 16+ games. Stephen Jackson made a strong statement that he would love to play for Denver yesterday. Jackson, Willis and Knowshow might make a good trio.

Pass catching TE's. Imagine our offense with a Gronkowski, a Graham, a Finley, a Olsen or a Vernon Davis. Our offense is enemic because we lack in this area. Tebow has ZERO security blanket. With a lack of weapons around him it will show up on his completion %.

In order to be elite our front office is going to have to open the pocket and sign some sure fire playmakers....then this offense will shine.

And yes Tebow needs to work this whole offseason going through his reads much faster, mechanics, footwork and just the simple timing of the WRs coming out of their breaks. He held the ball way too long at times and so he needs to "pull the trigger" as Elway said and just trust that his WRs will be there when they should. Its like he doesnt throw it until they are 100% wide open.

Also, I think Dumervil was playing hurt in some games.

[chazoe60]

Hey KCL, this isnt about the ******* Chiefs, troll some place else.

[Joel]

We benefited from a weak division.
The LAST place team was 7-9. The AFC West is NOT a weak Division; it's just not a particularly strong Division either. You won't find any cream puffs like this years Colts, Rams or Vikings in it though, and every team in it beat good teams during the regular season. Finishing first in that group is an accomplishment.

And stop giving KCL crap, people; I still think her Chiefs are the team to beat in the West next year, ironically with a team similar to ours but with MUCH better pass D. If they shut down offenses and pound Charles for 150 yards per game Orton won't have to pass much, and as long as he's just making 3 yard passes to Bowe on third down, after Charles softens up defences, they'll do better than the other defenceless teams in the Division.

[I Eat Staples]

Young teams will be inconsistent, but we were especially extreme with it. Von's injury brought our entire defense down, and Doom wasn't nearly as effective without a 100% Von on the other side. He's still an above average pass rusher, but nothing like the player he was when he led the league in sacks.

Our secondary is awful. Absolutely horrendous. When our pass rush was dominating games this was covered up, but opposing QBs rarely even throw incomplete passes when given time. I'm not sure what our plan is at safety considering we drafted two last year, but we need a corner or two or three desperately. What's wrong with Rahim Moore? He was a 2nd round pick who barely ever played. Carter looked better as the season went on, but I'm more than underwhelmed by his armless tackling. I think we bring in a veteran safety but give the young guys another year before addressing the position in the draft again.

Bunkley was a nice surprise on the line, but we still need help at DT. We have virtually no depth on the D-Line, and we need more fatties. At MLB, we need a replacement. Joe Mays is a good run stuffer, not a starting Mike. Nate Irving is missing and can probably be found somewhere with Moore. I'd like to at least see what he can give us. DJ Williams is still a good player, but not a great one. We need a much better backup/possible starter than Woodyard, who is a glorified special teams player.

I'm pleased with Allen's first year at DC. I think he had some nice schemes and he's very aggressive. His problems adjusting and his inconsistency can probably be attributed to growing pains. Fox is a great defensive mind and I believe he will help Allen grow into a fine DC. Remember, our coaching staff had this very bad defense playing very good, so they deserve a ton of credit. Mike McCoy should be gone, as he is terribly predictable and lacks any creativity whatsoever, but he won't be going anywhere unfortunately.

Our offensive line is young, and I was happy with them for the most part. Blocking for Tebow isn't easy when he holds the ball the way he does. Our run blocking was mostly excellent. I'd add some depth in FA but keep this young group and let them continue to gel. Clady's poor play remains a mystery, however. The era of the running back is over, and McGahee was more than sufficient. No need to waste needed picks on halfbacks, who are easy to plug and play these days. Moreno should be a serviceable 3rd down back, nothing more. Decker and DT are promising, we still don't know how to get production out of the very talented Royal, and Willis is still nothing more than a training camp hero to me. IMO receiver is the least important position other than fullback, but if we keep dropping passes, changes need to be made.

And of course, the biggest question is at QB. I say Tebow gets next year to show he can improve his passing, and if he can't, we thank him for the exciting times and move on in our search for a franchise QB.

Overall, we have plenty of holes on this team, but I feel very good about Elway, our coaching staff, and the direction we're headed. I trust these guys to bring in talent, and our staff has showed me they know what to do with it.

[Joel]

Young teams will be inconsistent, but we were especially extreme with it. Von's injury brought our entire defense down, and Doom wasn't nearly as effective without a 100% Von on the other side. He's still an above average pass rusher, but nothing like the player he was when he led the league in sacks.
At least Miller's on the field; I still believe losing Dawkins hurt us more, because without the threat of him coming up the middle there were more blockers free to pick up Miller and Doom. When Dawkins was playing we also got periodic coverage sacks (a concept with which Tebow is QUITE familiar) but none since he left.

Our secondary is awful. Absolutely horrendous. When our pass rush was dominating games this was covered up, but opposing QBs rarely even throw incomplete passes when given time. I'm not sure what our plan is at safety considering we drafted two last year, but we need a corner or two or three desperately. What's wrong with Rahim Moore? He was a 2nd round pick who barely ever played. Carter looked better as the season went on, but I'm more than underwhelmed by his armless tackling. I think we bring in a veteran safety but give the young guys another year before addressing the position in the draft again.
I think Champ may be that veteran safety, especially if we find a shutdown corner to take his current spot. If we also replaced Goodman with Harris I think we'd improve three positions with one player. Champ's still great, but hasn't looked himself for about a month. A few years ago he makes that endzone pick he dove for against Pitt and it's game over, but he may have reached that point where he still has the instinct and experience to see where the ball will go but no longer the speed to reach it in time. Get a corner and put him at safety; get a great safety and we still must replace a HoF corner in a year or two.

Bunkley was a nice surprise on the line, but we still need help at DT. We have virtually no depth on the D-Line, and we need more fatties. At MLB, we need a replacement. Joe Mays is a good run stuffer, not a starting Mike. Nate Irving is missing and can probably be found somewhere with Moore. I'd like to at least see what he can give us. DJ Williams is still a good player, but not a great one. We need a much better backup/possible starter than Woodyard, who is a glorified special teams player.
Stats aren't everything, but I find it interesting that as much as people complain about the lack of sacks from our DTs, no one says anything about Ryan McBean having 4. DTs are not DEs; I don't get why people expect them to be sack machines. I like Mays as a backup Mike, but he doesn't blitz or have the coverage skills and anticipation to start; he runs down plays and makes good tackles, but AFTER the catch in pass coverage.

I'm pleased with Allen's first year at DC. I think he had some nice schemes and he's very aggressive. His problems adjusting and his inconsistency can probably be attributed to growing pains. Fox is a great defensive mind and I believe he will help Allen grow into a fine DC. Remember, our coaching staff had this very bad defense playing very good, so they deserve a ton of credit. Mike McCoy should be gone, as he is terribly predictable and lacks any creativity whatsoever, but he won't be going anywhere unfortunately.
Allens biggest problem is that 2/3 of his only good DBs are >30; one is almost 40 and the other a rookie. The others are a scrub, two young guys, and a young scrub; none would start if we had anyone else, but we don't, so TWO of them start. Throw in a Mike who thinks he's a Sam plus a Sam who thinks he's a Mike and it's a bad scene.

Our offensive line is young, and I was happy with them for the most part. Blocking for Tebow isn't easy when he holds the ball the way he does. Our run blocking was mostly excellent. I'd add some depth in FA but keep this young group and let them continue to gel.
Everyone but Franklin's had 2 full seasons starting plus 2 postseason games to gel; I think Beadles and Walton may just be distilled water. I'd keep 'em for depth, but no way they should start; they've been playing with Clady and Kuper for 2 solid years but gotten no more consistent. They're sporadically good run blockers, and sometimes handle a minimal pass rush like Pitt showed them, but collapse against complex, aggressive and/or numerous blitzers. Maybe Tebow holds the ball too long and Orton was a fainting goat, but I can't help feeling Quinn would also go down in a heap a lot for some other reason that would somehow not be our guards fault. ;)

Clady's poor play remains a mystery, however.
Not really; he hurt his knee in preseason and has had to practice and play on it ever since. If he's still playing like this after an off season to sit on the couch eating chips, THEN we have a problem.

The era of the running back is over, and McGahee was more than sufficient. No need to waste needed picks on halfbacks, who are easy to plug and play these days. Moreno should be a serviceable 3rd down back, nothing more.
I wouldn't be so sure; I suspect the competition committee is going to take a hard look at the fact so many teams with NO defence, especially pass D, made the playoffs and ask themselves how they'll keep the serious veteran fans who pump $9 billion a year into their coffers if the NFL turns into the arena league. Your kids girlfriend may think all the long TD passes are exciting, and never notice teams are throwing a lot more of them because they know there's a good chance of PI if a defender even glances at a receiver, but she's not buying jerseys and hats or redecorating her basement with the team colors. The folks who are have begun to get a bit disgusted, and if the NFL wants them to stick around that must be addressed; they've already begun doing so by loosening the rules on when it's a penalty to touch a passers head. They could also decide giving defenseless receivers so much protection when injuries prematurely end every RBs career means they need protection of their own.

That said, I probably wouldn't draft a back, at least not highly. McGahee's not THAT old and, while I've been singularly unimpressed with Ball, I like a lot of Johnsons blocking, receiving and running. I hope the coaches also like it enough he makes the regular season roster. He put Brian Urlacher on his face, makes good catches and has the speed and shiftiness to be a great change of pace from McGahees tackle-breaking pile-moving power. Most importantly, because he can catch and block he can be that "every down back" and his presence/absence doesn't tell defences whether we're running/passing. The same nominally applies to Ball, but the problem is he goes down on first contact too much, so every time McGahee needs a breather after consecutive big runs, our rushing attack grinds to a halt.

Decker and DT are promising, we still don't know how to get production out of the very talented Royal, and Willis is still nothing more than a training camp hero to me. IMO receiver is the least important position other than fullback, but if we keep dropping passes, changes need to be made.
We need someone who prevents Thomas getting doubled every down, and unless Decker remembers how to catch and/or Royal learns to use some of his speed and moves when NOT returning kicks, we need another WR.

And of course, the biggest question is at QB. I say Tebow gets next year to show he can improve his passing, and if he can't, we thank him for the exciting times and move on in our search for a franchise QB.
That's reasonable and fair; we can't wait forever. In the interim, we need to get him some help, ESPECIALLY ON THE LINE, because he'll need NFL blocking and receiving to develop pocket presence (can't do that if there IS no pocket) and anticipate receivers breaking open for brief narrow passing windows (again, can learn to spot what's rarely there.) If Tebow's NOT the guy, well, guess what: Developing the next young stud passer will require both those very same things. Either way the offense is much better off if we acquire them.

Overall, we have plenty of holes on this team, but I feel very good about Elway, our coaching staff, and the direction we're headed. I trust these guys to bring in talent, and our staff has showed me they know what to do with it.
I agree with everything but that last part. Elway knows better than anyone the difference a supporting cast can make for even the best QBs; it's the difference between 0-3 in Super Bowls and 2-0. I think Fox knows how to assemble talent, too; he proved that in Carolina. I'm confident EFX will build us a talented title contending team.

I am UNCONFIDENT Fox can win championships with them; kicking to a team we COULD NOT STOP from scoring and COULD NOT CATCH if they got a big lead reinforces that. But Fox only has 2 years left on his contract. ;)

[nflfan]

Silk, this season was a whirlwind that's for sure. Very inconsistant and too conservative.

As for our QB. I know he can be something special as an NFL QB but it seems as if he is handicapped by the play calling. It's like they found the option worked on a few teams earlier in the year and then stuck with it even when it didnt make sense. McCoy needed to get Tebow involved in more screens, bootlegs and quick slants ect just to get him in rythym early and to help keep the drives alive. Tebow can be excellent as a deep ball threat or kill you with his legs if he has to but they need to concentrate on opening up the playbook and letting Tebow AUDIBLE when he feels the need. He looks frustrated at times like he wishes he could just do what he does best and they wont let him.

Our WR's. Look I like Decker but right now I'm not so sure he's even a #2 on most teams. DT has tons of potential but down the stretch he was getting alot of attention from defenses and you cant do it alone every game. Royal will make a nice play here and there but for the most part he doesnt show up, if anything he should remain the primary punt/kick returner. Bottom line is we need some serious talent at WR if we're going to expect Tebow to ever get the job done. Who in the heck is going to catch the ball??? Losing Brandon Llyod didnt help Tebow at all.

Safeties and Corners: They got handled all year. Bailey got burnt here and there simply because he cant do it all alone. When Dawkins was in and healthy our defense looked much more solid. In the offseason we are going to have to make some moves here and I think Dawkins has played his last game. Maybe we should have look at Darren Sharper just a little harder than we did, it would have helped us down the stretch. I think Reggie Nelson is a free agent.

I feel comfortable about our DTs and DEs. Ayers really did good this year and so did DJ but Mays wasnt really that smash mouth ILB that we needed at times. Possibly we draft a guy like Burflict from the Sun Devils.

McGahee. I love the guy and he's a huge reason we had the #1 rushing offense but I don't trust him to do what he did this year and for all 16+ games. Stephen Jackson made a strong statement that he would love to play for Denver yesterday. Jackson, Willis and Knowshow might make a good trio.

Pass catching TE's. Imagine our offense with a Gronkowski, a Graham, a Finley, a Olsen or a Vernon Davis. Our offense is enemic because we lack in this area. Tebow has ZERO security blanket. With a lack of weapons around him it will show up on his completion %.

In order to be elite our front office is going to have to open the pocket and sign some sure fire playmakers....then this offense will shine.

And yes Tebow needs to work this whole offseason going through his reads much faster, mechanics, footwork and just the simple timing of the WRs coming out of their breaks. He held the ball way too long at times and so he needs to "pull the trigger" as Elway said and just trust that his WRs will be there when they should. Its like he doesnt throw it until they are 100% wide open.

Also, I think Dumervil was playing hurt in some games.

Come on, don't blame the playcalling.

Fox stuck with the same gameplan that gave the Broncos the best chance to win. What the Pats did in their passing defense was similar to what the Chiefs did; they took away the passes Tebow was comfortable throwing, and gave him the ones he wasn't.

Tebow's current comfort zone is the option, and the Pats took that away. The plays where Tebow tried to pass from the pocket resulted in negative yards. Tebow likes to throw deep passes of the bootleg ... that wasn't there. Slants? No way is he comfortable doing that. Screens? They work when the defense believe you want to pass, and the linemen make it look like they were beaten, but the Pats were concerned about Tebow's running, not his passing.

Tebow played great for the Broncos this season; he just has limitations in some basic QB skills. This offseason, Tebow just has to learn some things to add to the skills he already does have.

[Joel]

Tebow had a pretty nice looking slant in OT against Pitt. Of course, he did NOT have multiple unblocked pass rushers in his face at the snap. Coincidence...?

[HORSEPOWER 56]

It was a smoke and mirrors season. Much like the McDaniels regime, we played above our ability at times and were exposed at others. The difference is there were signs of improvement instead of regression. We kept our composure during bad stretches instead of going into the tank like a lot of young teams do which is a credit to both the coaching staff and the players. Lots of rookie starters with no offseason (including some of the coaching staff). Lots of second year players at important positions. Major injuries late in the year to some staple players (Dawkins, Kuper, Decker) two of whom wear "C" on their uniform. The excuses were out in force for the Steelers last week, but very few people mentioned the Broncos injuries other than Dawkins.

As for the schizophrenia, the NFL is all about matchups, adjustments, and sometimes just right place, right time. Some games, we matched up well with the opposition and in some (like the Pats) we didn't match up well at all. Teams that have a ton of offensive talent and high-scoring offenses took it to us (GB, Detroit, NE). Other teams that were more similar to us we matched up well with (KC, NYJ, Oakland, Chicago, Miami). We'll just have to see how it plays out, but if these guys improve just a little and get their confidence and knowledge up, we have as good as shot as any to win the West and be in the playoffs again next year.

I'm extremely excited about this team going forward. We have a bunch of high motor, high character players playing for the name on the front of the jersey, the fans, and for each other.

[nflfan]

Tebow had a pretty nice looking slant in OT against Pitt. Of course, he did NOT have multiple unblocked pass rushers in his face at the snap. Coincidence...?

I think that looked more like a post, as the receiver ran 10 yards straight before cutting diagonally through the middle. It wasn't a quick slant in between defenders; it was a much deeper pass. Also, because the Steelers played the run too aggressively, Tebow had the receiver one on one. It was the kind of throw Tebow is very comfortable with, but the Pats took these throws away.

Pats defense played really well. I was surprised, as they were terrible most of the season.

[Medford Bronco]

Not to be critical but Denver won the division only one game up on KC who finished in last place...so what does that tell you? You were better than KC by one game and the other 2 teams finished with the same record.

It proves the afc west
Sucked. Also one playoff win at home was nice but not to
Go overboard on.

[Ravage!!!]

I think we are a team that is young, lacking in talent, but played above our heads. Many times we won on emotion, but emotion can't sustain on emotion alone. We actually need talent.

The coaches did a fantastic job considering the limitations they had. Our safeties are bad. Our LBs (other than Von) are weak. Our DL played WAY above what was expected.

Our Offense didn't have much to begin with in talent, started a QB that can't throw, but we made up for it by sticking to the run and keeping Tebow away from throwing as much as possible.

I would say we are just a major work in progress with a lot of unanswered questions.

[spikerman]

I would not be surprised if, next year, although the Broncos are a better team, they have a worse record. They have, what looks to be on paper, a pretty tough schedule. It's all part of the rebuilding process and a punishment for playing over their heads this year. It won't mean the team isn't improving, it just takes time.

[silkamilkamonico]

Our WR's. Look I like Decker but right now I'm not so sure he's even a #2 on most teams. DT has tons of potential but down the stretch he was getting alot of attention from defenses and you cant do it alone every game. Royal will make a nice play here and there but for the most part he doesnt show up, if anything he should remain the primary punt/kick returner. Bottom line is we need some serious talent at WR if we're going to expect Tebow to ever get the job done. Who in the heck is going to catch the ball??? Losing Brandon Llyod didnt help Tebow at all.

WR's I think is an interesting question mark. There is no question with DThomas. The guy has some things he really needs to work on (like catching the ball consistently), but he is so good once the route breaks down and is a physical specimen.

I do not like Decker myself. For as good as he was earlier, I think he was equally as bad later. The parts he excel at are blocking, and that's awesome but I do think we need WR's that are going to beat one on one coverage if this is the type of offense we are going to run.

Royal I don't know either. Every once in a while he does something good, but he is so inconsistent, and has been since his rookie year, it jsut doesn't seem to do anything for our offense every Sunday.

If Tebow is the direction we are going on offense, I think only DThomas is a mainstay, and we need some bigger taller WR's that can win those 1on1 battles that we're going to get with people moving up and stacking the box.

I really think our RB position needs an overhaul. Knowshon is under contract and should be back, McGahee has been very solid other than some ball handling issues but he gets hurt so often. Lance Ball I think sucks Balls.

[jhildebrand]

Plus the Chiefs were without 2 key players..Charles and Berry.

Denver didnt have any key injuries :rolleyes:

[KCL]

Denver didnt have any key injuries :rolleyes:

I never said Denver didn't...:rolleyes:

[jhildebrand]

Silk, I was in the same boat as you. I wasn't quite sure what we were. I tried to look at it. Were we a young team with injuries? Are we a team with little talent and no depth?

It hit me this morning. We are a John Fox team! He put his imprint on this team very quickly! Quicker than most.

This is who we will be going forward. Tough, physical. A good defense that will keep us in all or most of the games. We wont be an offensive juggernaut (even if this team could get a Luck or the guy I like Weeden).

[jhildebrand]

I never said Denver didn't...:rolleyes:

Your statement was as if Denver didn't as if KC's injuries were the only in the league and the ONLY reason for your record.

Your team's dysfunction had more to do with the record than the injuries!

[topscribe]

Lol, you would have lost to the steelers.

Not so sure. They didn't lose to Green Bay or to the Broncos in that last game . . .

[topscribe]

Your statement was as if Denver didn't as if KC's injuries were the only in the league and the ONLY reason for your record.

Your team's dysfunction had more to do with the record than the injuries!

That might have some validity, were it not that every team in the Division was dysfunctional . . .

[wayninja]

Not so sure. They didn't lose to Green Bay or to the Broncos in that last game . . .

But they DID lose to the steelers.

[Medford Bronco]

Your statement was as if Denver didn't as if KC's injuries were the only in the league and the ONLY reason for your record.

Your team's dysfunction had more to do with the record than the injuries!

I say Cassel getting hurt and Palco playing did not help. KC was a FG in ot vs Oak from tying us, So lets not make Denver out to be much better than they were.

Also losing 7-3 at home vs that turd Orton did not make us any better.

Just my humble op. I am not calling anyone out. Please no hate :lol:

[KCL]

Your team's dysfunction had more to do with the record than the injuries!



So having Charles this season wouldn't have helped the running game which could have resulted in a better record.And also having Berry in the secondary wouldn't have made a difference for the defense?

uh okay!

[KCL]

I say Cassel getting hurt and Palco playing did not help. KC was a FG in ot vs Oak from tying us, So lets not make Denver out to be much better than they were.

Also losing 7-3 at home vs that turd Orton did not make us any better.

Just my humble op. I am not calling anyone out. Please no hate :lol:

Med no hate from me..you know that!

turd Orton...:lol:

[chazoe60]

I forget, does this thread actually have anything to do with the Chiefs, or was it just trolling that turned it into a Chiefs thread?


BTW, the Chiefs didn't play in a playoff game because they didn't deserve to. 1993

[topscribe]

But they DID lose to the steelers.


By 4 pts. With Palko at QB.

They lost to the Broncos, too . . . and came back and beat them . . .

[weazel]

Plus the Chiefs were without 2 key players..Charles and Berry.

it tells us that blaming injuries is for losers

[topscribe]

I forget, does this thread actually have anything to do with the Chiefs, or was it just trolling that turned it into a Chiefs thread?


BTW, the Chiefs didn't play in a playoff game because they didn't deserve to. 1993

KCL made a valid observation about the Division as a whole, and then came the attacks . . .

[KCL]

KCL made a valid observation about the Division as a whole, and then came the attacks . . .

Exactly top...a few Bronco fans agreed with me as a few high5ed that post.

[jhildebrand]

So having Charles this season wouldn't have helped the running game which could have resulted in a better record.And also having Berry in the secondary wouldn't have made a difference for the defense?

uh okay!

McCluster is almost the same player as Charles. The staff didn't recognize that. In fact, McCluster with that speed could be a CJ2k type.

Berry didn't help. But he began to struggle late the year before. There is no telling how effective he would have been.

I just am not one to blame outcomes of seasons on injuries because all teams have them. The Pack led the league in IR and injuries last season. They still won the SB!

I will continue to contend the dysfunction killed your team! Also, the reports coming out of KC are about the same as Denver-extreme paranoia CRIPPLING the building! Pioli may be gone this time next year!

[KCL]

it tells us that blaming injuries is for losers

I am not a loser but call it like you want...:D

[topscribe]

Exactly top...a few Bronco fans agreed with me as a few high5ed that post.

So did I . . . just now.

[KCL]

McCluster is almost the same player as Charles. The staff didn't recognize that. In fact, McCluster with that speed could be a CJ2k type.

Berry didn't help. But he began to struggle late the year before. There is no telling how effective he would have been.

I just am not one to blame outcomes of seasons on injuries because all teams have them. The Pack led the league in IR and injuries last season. They still won the SB!

I will continue to contend the dysfunction killed your team! Also, the reports coming out of KC are about the same as Denver-extreme paranoia CRIPPLING the building! Pioli may be gone this time next year!

I would reply to you but I am trolling and making this about the Chiefs..:lol:
so no comment other than that...carry on...:D

[topscribe]

I would reply to you but I am trolling and making this about the Chiefs..:lol:
so no comment other than that...carry on...:D

Oh, even I have been accused of trolling after making a realistic observation . . .

[chazoe60]

People always whining about being attacked. Whaaa! Grow up, babies. If you dont want to catch a ration of shit ron't come into a Bronco thread and essentially say "the Chiefs would have won the division if they weren't so injured". Give it up.


Ever since we lost to KC, KCL has been trolling multiple threads with subtle little jabs. She deserved to get a little shit for it finally. I can see why she frustrated though, kids born the last time the Chiefs won a playoff game can vote now. :laugh:

[topscribe]

And then we have people attaching the "whining" label.

A convenient out when a person responds to direct attacks . . .

[bcbronc]

someone needs to remind top that the Chiefs are the enemy.

[topscribe]

someone needs to remind top that the Chiefs are the enemy.

Right. So therefore, let's just throw the facts out the window, shall we?

Being a Broncos fan means gushing all over them with platitudes, no matter how false they may be, right?

[Ziggy]

Hey KCL, this isnt about the ******* Chiefs, troll some place else.

KCL is far from a troll. She's earned her respect around here with years of quality posting. You might try that method yourself rather than call someone a troll for posting something you don't agree with.

[KCL]

People always whining about being attacked. Whaaa! Grow up, babies. If you dont want to catch a ration of shit ron't come into a Bronco thread and essentially say "the Chiefs would have won the division if they weren't so injured". Give it up.


Ever since we lost to KC, KCL has been trolling multiple threads with subtle little jabs. She deserved to get a little shit for it finally. I can see why she frustrated though, kids born the last time the Chiefs won a playoff game can vote now. :laugh:

Who is whining? I have laughed it all off.I didn't say they would have won the division if we hadn't of had injuries.I gave my opinion to the thread and added we had injuries and still only finished 1 game behind Denver.I was surprised that we even finished 7-9.

You can call it trolling if you want but if you can't handle facts or the truth..well that's your problem.

[topscribe]

KCL is far from a troll. She's earned her respect around here with years of quality posting. You might try that method yourself rather than call someone a troll for posting something you don't agree with.

KCL might be a Chiefs fan, but she is one of the first posters on this board, and
she is totally loyal to it. She is instrumental in helping to make this board what
it is today. To call her a troll is to be utterly ungrateful for her considerable
contributions to it. That is why I have her back . . .

[weazel]

I am not a loser but call it like you want...:D

Im not personally calling you a loser KCL, you know that. I'm saying using injuries as an excuse is for losers. Injuries happen to every team, every year. The organization has to have depth, if it doesnt, its not a good team.

Thats just the way it is in any sport. Not that hard to grasp, really.

[chazoe60]

KCL is far from a troll. She's earned her respect around here with years of quality posting. You might try that method yourself rather than call someone a troll for posting something you don't agree with.

I don't give a shit how long she's been posting. She's been trolling like crazy ever since the Chiefs won.

[topscribe]

I don't give a shit how long she's been posting. She's been trolling like crazy ever since the Chiefs won.

Let me put it another way: Chill.

[chazoe60]

Let me put it another way: Chill.
Let me put it another way: No

[topscribe]

Let me put it another way: No

Fine. You know I love ya, Chazzie, but now you've become the troll in this particular instance.

I'm done here . . .

[Medford Bronco]

I would reply to you but I am trolling and making this about the Chiefs..:lol:
so no comment other than that...carry on...:D

Stop Trolling or I will sick Dee Brown on you ;):lol:

[wayninja]

KCL made a valid observation about the Division as a whole, and then came the attacks . . .

Actually, I was the one attacked for posting the facts. The fact is that the Chiefs came in dead last in our division. We came in first.

Everything else was designed to provoke a response.

[KCL]

Im not personally calling you a loser KCL, you know that. I'm saying using injuries as an excuse is for losers. Injuries happen to every team, every year. The organization has to have depth, if it doesnt, its not a good team.

Thats just the way it is in any sport. Not that hard to grasp, really.

ok that's fair and I agree.My opinion is and I stand by this that with Charles healthy I think the Chiefs would have done better.Now that is just my opinion.I have read several post from Bronco fans that say the same thing about Dumervil.

[weazel]

ok that's fair and I agree.My opinion is and I stand by this that with Charles healthy I think the Chiefs would have done better.Now that is just my opinion.I have read several post from Bronco fans that say the same thing about Dumervil.

and in the end... none of the 4 pathetic teams in this division would have done any better than what the broncos did in the playoffs. They are all horrible teams.

[topscribe]

Actually, I was the one attacked for posting the facts. The fact is that the Chiefs came in dead last in our division. We came in first.

Everything else was designed to provoke a response.

I understand where you're coming from. It wasn't as much the nature of your
post as it was the circumstances, and I know you didn't intend it.

And your comment might have more validity if the Chiefs were more than one
game out of first place and had they lost to the Broncos in that last game. It
just seems a silly argument . . . on both sides, now that I think of it . . .

[KCL]

I don't give a shit how long she's been posting. She's been trolling like crazy ever since the Chiefs won.

Uh excuse me Denver isn't the only team KC beat this year...I will respond when people say something about the Chiefs that I don't agree with and that isn't trolling.

Some of you guys on here are to uptight..hell dog and I go back and forth about our teams with one another and it's all in good fun...he knows that and so do I...We also compliment each others teams as well.

[wayninja]

I understand where you're coming from. It wasn't as much the nature of your
post as it was the circumstances, and I know you didn't intend it.

And your comment might have more validity if the Chiefs were more than one
game out of first place and had they lost to the Broncos in that last game. It
just seems a silly argument . . . on both sides, now that I think of it . . .

My comments have supreme validity. Because they are facts. You can qualify all you want, it doesn't change my comments or how valid they are.

[topscribe]

Hey guys and gals, fuses are a bit short right now for obvious and understandable reasons.

Let's just consider the intentions of our posts before we respond?

Me included.

[KCL]

Stop Trolling or I will sick Dee Brown on you ;):lol:

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
too funny Med....see Med and I go back a ways and that is an inside joke.

[topscribe]

My comments have supreme validity. Because they are facts. You can qualify all you want, it doesn't change my comments or how valid they are.

Okay, yes, they are valid. That wasn't a good use of the word. Perhaps it would
have been better to say they weren't very "weighty"? When one game separates
all four teams, and none finishes better than 8-8, I don't think any one of them
has a thing to crow about . . .

[KCL]

and in the end... none of the 4 pathetic teams in this division would have done any better than what the broncos did in the playoffs. They are all horrible teams.

Dawkins is who I meant and as to your post I said the same thing in another thread that none of the 4 teams would have beat the Pats.I know KC wouldn't have as we couldn't get it done in the regular season.Chiefs are horrible in the playoffs..have been for years.

[weazel]

Dawkins is who I meant and as to your post I said the same thing in another thread that none of the 4 teams would have beat the Pats.I know KC wouldn't have as we couldn't get it done in the regular season.Chiefs are horrible in the playoffs..have been for years.

in the NFL you have two kinds of teams, haves and have-nots... we just happen to cheer for teams in a have-not division :lol:

[topscribe]

Dawkins is who I meant and as to your post I said the same thing in another thread that none of the 4 teams would have beat the Pats.I know KC wouldn't have as we couldn't get it done in the regular season.Chiefs are horrible in the playoffs..have been for years.

A team needs a QB in the playoffs . . .

[wayninja]

Okay, yes, they are valid. That wasn't a good use of the word. Perhaps it would
have been better to say they weren't very "weighty"? When one game separates
all four teams, and none finishes better than 8-8, I don't think any one of them
has a thing to crow about . . .

Hey, I get that you are being diplomatic and all, but this is just getting silly. You can throw whatever adjective you want in the mix, but the facts just don't change. The 'weight' is with the facts.

Have fun debating how close other teams came and whatever 'what-if' scenariou you want, just don't try to diminish reality. That's all I ever took objection to.

[KCL]

A team needs a QB in the playoffs . . .

The Chiefs need a QB.

[chazoe60]

Chiefs are horrible in the playoffs..have been for years.
Going on decades actually.

[KCL]

Going on decades actually.

I can't argue with that!

[topscribe]

Hey, I get that you are being diplomatic and all, but this is just getting silly. You can throw whatever adjective you want in the mix, but the facts just don't change. The 'weight' is with the facts.

Have fun debating how close other teams came and whatever 'what-if' scenariou you want, just don't try to diminish reality. That's all I ever took objection to.

Debate on how close they are? Three teams at 8-8, and the other 7-9?

/debate :whoknows:


And I'm not into "what-ifs," so I'm probably not the one to address on that . . .

[Nomad]

BRONCOS are heading in the right direction. Should be a productive offseason and looking forward to next season.

[weazel]

I just think that we had no chance with Lonnie Paxton injured. If he was in, we would have won the game for sure.

maybe you're right KCL, I'm using the injury excuse!

[topscribe]

I just think that we had no chance with Lonnie Paxton injured. If he was in, we would have won the game for sure.

maybe you're right KCL, I'm using the injury excuse!

I think it was the fact that McDaniels was on the Pats' side . . .



. . . and wearing a hoodie . . .

[DenBronx]

Come on, don't blame the playcalling.
Fox stuck with the same gameplan that gave the Broncos the best chance to win. What the Pats did in their passing defense was similar to what the Chiefs did; they took away the passes Tebow was comfortable throwing, and gave him the ones he wasn't.

Tebow's current comfort zone is the option, and the Pats took that away. The plays where Tebow tried to pass from the pocket resulted in negative yards. Tebow likes to throw deep passes of the bootleg ... that wasn't there. Slants? No way is he comfortable doing that. Screens? They work when the defense believe you want to pass, and the linemen make it look like they were beaten, but the Pats were concerned about Tebow's running, not his passing.

Tebow played great for the Broncos this season; he just has limitations in some basic QB skills. This offseason, Tebow just has to learn some things to add to the skills he already does have.


Actually I will blame the playcalling. It was absolutely horrid and predictable at times. It might not be all of the problem but it sure as hell was a big part of it.

[DenBronx]

WR's I think is an interesting question mark. There is no question with DThomas. The guy has some things he really needs to work on (like catching the ball consistently), but he is so good once the route breaks down and is a physical specimen.

I do not like Decker myself. For as good as he was earlier, I think he was equally as bad later. The parts he excel at are blocking, and that's awesome but I do think we need WR's that are going to beat one on one coverage if this is the type of offense we are going to run.

Royal I don't know either. Every once in a while he does something good, but he is so inconsistent, and has been since his rookie year, it jsut doesn't seem to do anything for our offense every Sunday.

If Tebow is the direction we are going on offense, I think only DThomas is a mainstay, and we need some bigger taller WR's that can win those 1on1 battles that we're going to get with people moving up and stacking the box.

I really think our RB position needs an overhaul. Knowshon is under contract and should be back, McGahee has been very solid other than some ball handling issues but he gets hurt so often. Lance Ball I think sucks Balls.

I agree with everything here.

McGahee was good just worried about his health next year. So I would make a move for a Matt Forte to add to our core. Lance Ball is not good at all so I would like to see a change. We will keep Knowshow and Willis but I think we need to add 1 more RB.

And, I would be on the phone with Shanahan about Eddie Royal. I like Royal but he's not a game breaker unless he's returning kicks. So maybe make a play for DeSean Jackson or trade for Harvin.

Either way, I just don't see Tebow doing any better unless he gets some playmakers on offense. It's funny how lower market teams like Atlanta or Detriot can go after weapons on offense for their QBs but Denver ignores the need.

[DenBronx]

Royals a free agent so disregard my comment about shopping him.

[broncobryce]

Come on, don't blame the playcalling.

Fox stuck with the same gameplan that gave the Broncos the best chance to win. What the Pats did in their passing defense was similar to what the Chiefs did; they took away the passes Tebow was comfortable throwing, and gave him the ones he wasn't.

Tebow's current comfort zone is the option, and the Pats took that away. The plays where Tebow tried to pass from the pocket resulted in negative yards. Tebow likes to throw deep passes of the bootleg ... that wasn't there. Slants? No way is he comfortable doing that. Screens? They work when the defense believe you want to pass, and the linemen make it look like they were beaten, but the Pats were concerned about Tebow's running, not his passing.

Tebow played great for the Broncos this season; he just has limitations in some basic QB skills. This offseason, Tebow just has to learn some things to add to the skills he already does have.

Maybe he "likes to" but we hardly ever ran a bootleg this season. I can remember 1 time and that was against the steelers.

[KCL]

I just think that we had no chance with Lonnie Paxton injured. If he was in, we would have won the game for sure.

maybe you're right KCL, I'm using the injury excuse!

Yeah you're probably right in this thinking as the Broncos were never out of it til the last few minutes of the game...;)

I am kidding with weazel just so you all know!

[weazel]

I just think that we had no chance with Lonnie Paxton injured. If he was in, we would have won the game for sure.

maybe you're right KCL, I'm using the injury excuse!

Yeah you're probably right in this thinking as the Broncos were never out of it til the last few minutes of the game...;)

I am kidding with weazel just so you all know!

Yep, at least they kept it close!

[OaklandRaider]

Plus the Chiefs were without 2 key players..Charles and Berry.

If we want to talk about injuries, I want to bring up the Raiders loss of the best runningback in the NFL in Darren McFadden. With him, the Raiders likely win this division going away IMO.:D

[topscribe]

If we want to talk about injuries, I want to bring up the Raiders loss of the best runningback in the NFL in Darren McFadden. With him, the Raiders likely win this division going away IMO.:D

That may be true, but had that happened, then I would want Ty Warren
healthy and a full season out of Demaryius Thomas, Moreno, McGahee, and
Dawkins. Gotta keep the playing field even . . .


Oh yes, and I'm sure the Chiefs would want Cassel, Charles, and Berry.

[KCL]

That may be true, but had that happened, then I would want Ty Warren
healthy and a full season out of Demaryius Thomas, Moreno, McGahee, and
Dawkins. Gotta keep the playing field even . . .


Oh yes, and I'm sure the Chiefs would want Cassel, Charles, and Berry.

And Moeaki who was injured in a preseason game...:D

[KCL]

Hey OR has an adopted Bronco...maybe I should have one...:D

[topscribe]

And Moeaki who was injured in a preseason game...:D

I know. I didn't know how to spell his name, so I didn't list him. :laugh:

[NameUsedBefore]

Denver is a team with a wide gap between its young and old. Lots of holes, lots of room for improvement, lots of room for decline. It's a thin, knife's edge line between going back to the basement or stepping ahead of the rest of the division -- which are all, more or less, in the exact same boat.

[Joel]

I think that looked more like a post, as the receiver ran 10 yards straight before cutting diagonally through the middle. It wasn't a quick slant in between defenders; it was a much deeper pass. Also, because the Steelers played the run too aggressively, Tebow had the receiver one on one. It was the kind of throw Tebow is very comfortable with, but the Pats took these throws away.
Note the key word, and it didn't look to me like he ran that far straight downfield before slanting back toward the other side of the field. If you watch the replay Mundy realized his mistake and started back toward the center of the field after Thomas took just a couple steps (but it was already too late.) If Thomas had run down then in like a post Mundy would've been going straight back with him, not back and in to stop a throw over the middle. It looked like a deep slant to me, but still a slant. JMO.

Pats defense played really well. I was surprised, as they were terrible most of the season.
Yeah, they were through the line and on us at the snap every down; it was almost like they knew our playb--oh... right.... :mad:

[wayninja]

If we want to talk about injuries, I want to bring up the Raiders loss of the best runningback in the NFL in Darren McFadden. With him, the Raiders likely win this division going away IMO.:D

Actually, we don't, nor is that what this thread was intended for. Man, I thought we were sore losers.

[nflfan]

Note the key word, and it didn't look to me like he ran that far straight downfield before slanting back toward the other side of the field. If you watch the replay Mundy realized his mistake and started back toward the center of the field after Thomas took just a couple steps (but it was already too late.) If Thomas had run down then in like a post Mundy would've been going straight back with him, not back and in to stop a throw over the middle. It looked like a deep slant to me, but still a slant. JMO.

Yeah, they were through the line and on us at the snap every down; it was almost like they knew our playb--oh... right.... :mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njVo97vH9Q0

You're probably right. The quick slants, the shorter variety, is a pretty good pass to have to get short positive yardage against a very aggressive defense. He'll need to get a little more comfortable throwing those kinds of passes consistently next season.

I don't think McDaniels had anything to do with teaching the Pats about the Broncos offense. This is a very different offense from what McDaniels was running.

The irony here is, had McDaniels been more flexible with his thinking, he might have been able to orchestrate a similar offense with Tebow the way Fox/McCoy has. He could have won more games and justified his pick of Tebow, plus probably gain a ton of fan support.

[bcbronc]

The irony here is, had McDaniels been more flexible with his thinking, he might have been able to orchestrate a similar offense with Tebow the way Fox/McCoy has. He could have won more games and justified his pick of Tebow, plus probably gain a ton of fan support.

Tebow clearly needed the time to work on mechanics before being thrust into a starting roll he wasn't ready for. Two completely different head coaches waited as long as rationally possible before starting Tebow, that's not a coincidence.

People forget that Tebow had a package drawn up for him as a rookie, and contributed from it. When people say McDaniel's didn't play Tebow, they're wrong. imo his gameplan was to spoon feed Tebow the NFL game while Tebow transformed himself into a professional QB. Tebow would have increased snaps with a bigger playbook as he became ready, and maybe 3-4 years down the road become the outright #1.

Be interesting to see what Fox and McCoy expect of Tebow next season. Fox is going to stay a run-first coach, that much is pretty certain. But will they continue being okay having their play calling limited by the limitations of the QB? No excuses next season, Tebow has to be able to consistently hit a deep crossing route even with a safety over top. He has to be able to consistently hit a quick slant without his long wind-up tipping off DLs and LBs to get their hands active.

For an NFL QB to have consistent success, he has to be able to manage the short, quick passing game. But that requires consistent footwork, decisive decision making, and accurate delivery, none of which Tebow has. Until he does, it's hard to fully evaluate just what we have on offense.

imo we can't be having this same conversation this time next season (refering to the OP). There can't still be this confusion over what our offense is. If it's not a clear and definitive "yes" on Tebow, it's "no" and time to move on.

[nflfan]

Tebow clearly needed the time to work on mechanics before being thrust into a starting roll he wasn't ready for. Two completely different head coaches waited as long as rationally possible before starting Tebow, that's not a coincidence.

People forget that Tebow had a package drawn up for him as a rookie, and contributed from it. When people say McDaniel's didn't play Tebow, they're wrong. imo his gameplan was to spoon feed Tebow the NFL game while Tebow transformed himself into a professional QB. Tebow would have increased snaps with a bigger playbook as he became ready, and maybe 3-4 years down the road become the outright #1.

Be interesting to see what Fox and McCoy expect of Tebow next season. Fox is going to stay a run-first coach, that much is pretty certain. But will they continue being okay having their play calling limited by the limitations of the QB? No excuses next season, Tebow has to be able to consistently hit a deep crossing route even with a safety over top. He has to be able to consistently hit a quick slant without his long wind-up tipping off DLs and LBs to get their hands active.

For an NFL QB to have consistent success, he has to be able to manage the short, quick passing game. But that requires consistent footwork, decisive decision making, and accurate delivery, none of which Tebow has. Until he does, it's hard to fully evaluate just what we have on offense.

imo we can't be having this same conversation this time next season (refering to the OP). There can't still be this confusion over what our offense is. If it's not a clear and definitive "yes" on Tebow, it's "no" and time to move on.

I agree with all of your points. I still believe, though, that Tebow could've ran this type of offense last season, as it's the same type he ran in college.

I don't doubt that McDaniels had a plan for Tebow, but his timetable was unrealistic, considering the round he got him at. Aaron Rodgers is a happy accident, because Favre was too unpredictable with his retirement. Today, you get a QB in the first round, he should be starting immediately or in his 2nd season.

Tebow has a lot of traits that you can't teach. Problem is, he's way underdeveloped in basic QB skills. It's a risk no matter what direction the organization takes. Tough decision for Elway.

[Joel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njVo97vH9Q0

You're probably right. The quick slants, the shorter variety, is a pretty good pass to have to get short positive yardage against a very aggressive defense. He'll need to get a little more comfortable throwing those kinds of passes consistently next season.

I don't think McDaniels had anything to do with teaching the Pats about the Broncos offense. This is a very different offense from what McDaniels was running.

The irony here is, had McDaniels been more flexible with his thinking, he might have been able to orchestrate a similar offense with Tebow the way Fox/McCoy has. He could have won more games and justified his pick of Tebow, plus probably gain a ton of fan support.
Could go either way, I guess; it's not an exact science. Digging around from your link (completely forgot there's already umpteen YouTube videos of that play; gotta love the internet) I found another one where someone taped the overhead replay where Simms telestrates it, and you can see the whole play a lot better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySQsnChKe1c&feature=related

Thomas starts breaking it back inside about the 25, at an angle, but not a really sharp angle.

The exchange you had with bc is interesting to me, because I think the short pass VASTLY overrated. It's a good blitz beater (though not as good as a screen or delay draw, IMHO) and vital to keep teams guessing in short yardage, but the way it inflates completion percentage, and therefore passer ratings (where completion percentage is the ultimate stat) makes it look a lot more valuable than it is. The inflated completion percentages, by themselves WORTHLESS, come at the expense of far less yardage and chance of scoring on a pass, plus a far greater risk of interceptions, especially pick sixes. Those things are worth a LOT; the first two are the only reasons something that causes 70% of turnovers is worth it, while the latter inflates the already much higher risk of a turnover, and a costly one, along with completion percentages.

Let's pause for a moment to consider the implications of that "70% of turnovers" for the short passing game. That's before we even count fumbled catches; add that in and the risk of a turnover is probably about three times as great passing as running. Worse, short passes are thrown either in LB Country, where there are many defenders on the move near the line, or toward the sideline near the line of scrimmage, where a DB jumping the route at a dead sprint has NOTHING between him and the endzone, with all the offensive players moving the other way.

I don't know if our old school offense, with its disproportionate running, few long passes with lower completion percentages, will be our long term norm--but I know it SHOULD be. If we run our primary back 20 times a game, CALL (NOT option) a run to our QB 10 more and throw 12 long and 6 short passes per game, that will be a DEADLY offense once our young players have solid experience with it, especially out of shot gun spreads. It's 11 man football without that hesitant option garbage fast, powerful and aggressive NFL Ds swarm.

The front seven has to account for the back (or backs in a three receiver set) and QB running every down, but the whole secondary must also worry about the deep ball from all receivers. The primary back doesn't get beat up or worn out, because even though he gets MOST carries, the QB shares the load. Even though we aren't passing much, when we DO, a completion usually puts us in range for an easy FG IF teams make the tackle; one miss is probably a TD. If they manage a pick, well, a 50 yard pick is the same as a punt; as long as our offense doesn't just let the safety run by them all it costs us a possession, but doesn't give them free points.

If "success" is 2nd and 5, a successful run does that with FAR less risk of a turnover, let alone a likely defensive TD: Why take far greater risks for no more reward? Even a "poor" run probably results in 2nd and 8 or 9; a "poor" pass results in 2nd and 10. Likewise, while some runs are losses, some passes are sacks (or worse, sack-fumbles, which, once again, were not count as passes when I said, "Passes cause 70% of turnovers.")

A final note: While I want mostly long passes, that does NOT necessarily mean bombs; shorter passes are fine IF they are for first down yardage. The critical concept I value in the passing game is that since it IS riskier, the potential reward should be proportionate. Since the chance of losing the ball on any one pass play is 2-3 times higher than on a run, it's only worth if a SUCCESSFUL play instantly and by itself either:

1) Moves the chains,
2) Puts the team in FG range and/or
3) Scores a TD.

With all that in mind, unless teams are blitzing every down (which they're welcome to do if we're running 60% of the time) and/or our line is completely incapable of pass blocking, I'm not sure how important it really is to hit those quick slants/outs/crossing patterns. The MOST important thing there is to NOT throw picks, because otherwise the half dozen short passes we throw probably won't be pivotal anyway; they rarely gain enough yards for a first down, rarely score, and even the best QBs will miss one or two of them a game. Are we really talking about benching a QB over 4 passes that probably won't get 30 yards in the whole game?

Consistent success with what I just described requires an offense with more experience, and probably more talent than ours--but so does any offensive strategy. The main thing unique about the above approach is what was unique about the old T QBs: Dual threat talent. Fortunately, such QBs are increasingly common in the NFL; the only difference is that 70 years ago the NFL was a running League demanding ever more passing ability from QBs, and now it is a passing League demanding ever more RUNNING ability from them.

It's right and reasonable to expect Tebow to pass accurately from the pocket, but that is NOT the same as expecting him to be a pocket passer, which is undesirable whether he can do it or not. The pocket passer is dead; Troy Aikmans double concussion season killed it. Look around the League and how many really effective pocket passers are there? Basically, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady; even ELI Manning is a dangerous runner from time to time, of necessity. Unless you can put together a line like the Colts and Pats, you can't keep a pocket passer on his feet, and even if you do you'll probably be forced to trade some run blocking to get five elite pass blockers. Aaron Rodgers is the prototypical modern passer--he was also the leading rusher in last nights game against NY.

Short form: Screw short passes; yds+pts-pick sixes>completion percentage. Which Broncos QBs have been really GOOD pocket passers, especially short, since Elway left? Griese and Orton; couldn't keep 'em upright. ;)

[nflfan]

Joel, first of all, good post. I agree in that passing is always going to be riskier than running, so that should mean that the reward should at least be commensurate with the risk; to you, short passes that don't at least move the chains is not worth the risk.

I've read similar thoughts years ago. I believe the Coryell system is based on similar principles ... power running and deep to mid passing. Walsh used what we call the WCO because it could operate with less talented players.

In theory, rushing for the shorter gains and passing for the longer gains sounds good. The reality, though, is that a lot of times, defenses can dictate what they give the offense. Case in point, the Pats playoff game.

The Pats were very effective neutralizing the rush, and they were also able to get through to the passer very quickly. There was no time for the deep pass, and the rushing was well contained. That equated to stalled drives.

In order for that theoretical scheme to work, you'd have to have superior linemen who would not only win their battles for rushing, but also be superior in their pass protection. You'd need receivers who can not only win their battles with the CBs, but with safety help too. Because the passes are longer, protection has to hold better.

It's not about having great completion percentage numbers; it's about giving yourself the best chance to score, and part of that is keeping drives alive. In today's NFL, the short pass is a critical component, and the risks associated with it are necessary. QBs just have to get good at executing it; it should be second nature, the way it is for Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Ryan, Roethlisberger ... really, any consistent offense.

Even Norv's version of the Coryell has some WCO flavor in it for the short passes to the TEs. The short pass is necessary, and it can also be a tough to defend weapon. No ifs or buts about it, all NFL QBs must have this basic weapon in their arsenal. It's practically how Brady made his living his first few seasons as a pro, and he continues to use it even more now with his 2 TEs and Welker. He used it to romp the Broncos. Rodgers uses it efficiently to score TDs, like he did with one of the earlier scoring drives against the Giants.

To say that the pocket passer is dead is way off. People have been trying to say that for years, but in the end, passing is the main attribute the QB must have to fully utilize all the weapons in his offense. A QB who has a run first mentality will not see the different opportunities all around the field. Just look what Rodgers can do.

What superior, consistent offense right now uses a QB who thinks run first? Mobility is an asset for a QB, but it's used more wisely only to buy him more time and a better angle to complete a pass. Tebow is not comfortable in the pocket, so when he feels a little pressure, he has the urge to either rush or break from the pocket. That in itself makes it more difficult for the OL to block for him.

Brady, both Mannings, Rivers, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Roethlisberger ... these are the QBs for the most consistent offenses. They are excellent pocket passers, and they all execute short passes efficiently. None of them need, or even try, to rush; they only do so opportunistically. Cam is changing the game, because he's excellent at both pocket passing and rushing.

Tebow knows what he has to learn, and if he doesn't, he will limit effectivity of the offense.

[ydave77]

So having Charles this season wouldn't have helped the running game which could have resulted in a better record.And also having Berry in the secondary wouldn't have made a difference for the defense?

uh okay!

You're generally the classiest KC fan on this board. And although your comments in this thread, are relatively benign, to roll them out the day after we have had a humiliating playoff loss, is bad timing.

[KCL]

You're generally the classiest KC fan on this board. And although your comments in this thread, are relatively benign, to roll them out the day after we have had a humiliating playoff loss, is bad timing.

I just read some post from Ziggy in another thread...there are a whole lot of Bronco fans on here that could learn a thing or two from him.

BTW-My initial post was in response to the thread and a few Bronco fans agreed with me.Others chose to get personal and were allowed to so I reacted..anyway that's all I have to say to you about this post.

[cmc0605]

Could go either way, I guess; it's not an exact science. Digging around from your link (completely forgot there's already umpteen YouTube videos of that play; gotta love the internet) I found another one where someone taped the overhead replay where Simms telestrates it, and you can see the whole play a lot better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySQsnChKe1c&feature=related

Thomas starts breaking it back inside about the 25, at an angle, but not a really sharp angle.

The exchange you had with bc is interesting to me, because I think the short pass VASTLY overrated. It's a good blitz beater (though not as good as a screen or delay draw, IMHO) and vital to keep teams guessing in short yardage, but the way it inflates completion percentage, and therefore passer ratings (where completion percentage is the ultimate stat) makes it look a lot more valuable than it is. The inflated completion percentages, by themselves WORTHLESS, come at the expense of far less yardage and chance of scoring on a pass, plus a far greater risk of interceptions, especially pick sixes. Those things are worth a LOT; the first two are the only reasons something that causes 70% of turnovers is worth it, while the latter inflates the already much higher risk of a turnover, and a costly one, along with completion percentages.

Let's pause for a moment to consider the implications of that "70% of turnovers" for the short passing game. That's before we even count fumbled catches; add that in and the risk of a turnover is probably about three times as great passing as running. Worse, short passes are thrown either in LB Country, where there are many defenders on the move near the line, or toward the sideline near the line of scrimmage, where a DB jumping the route at a dead sprint has NOTHING between him and the endzone, with all the offensive players moving the other way.

I don't know if our old school offense, with its disproportionate running, few long passes with lower completion percentages, will be our long term norm--but I know it SHOULD be. If we run our primary back 20 times a game, CALL (NOT option) a run to our QB 10 more and throw 12 long and 6 short passes per game, that will be a DEADLY offense once our young players have solid experience with it, especially out of shot gun spreads. It's 11 man football without that hesitant option garbage fast, powerful and aggressive NFL Ds swarm.

The front seven has to account for the back (or backs in a three receiver set) and QB running every down, but the whole secondary must also worry about the deep ball from all receivers. The primary back doesn't get beat up or worn out, because even though he gets MOST carries, the QB shares the load. Even though we aren't passing much, when we DO, a completion usually puts us in range for an easy FG IF teams make the tackle; one miss is probably a TD. If they manage a pick, well, a 50 yard pick is the same as a punt; as long as our offense doesn't just let the safety run by them all it costs us a possession, but doesn't give them free points.

If "success" is 2nd and 5, a successful run does that with FAR less risk of a turnover, let alone a likely defensive TD: Why take far greater risks for no more reward? Even a "poor" run probably results in 2nd and 8 or 9; a "poor" pass results in 2nd and 10. Likewise, while some runs are losses, some passes are sacks (or worse, sack-fumbles, which, once again, were not count as passes when I said, "Passes cause 70% of turnovers.")

A final note: While I want mostly long passes, that does NOT necessarily mean bombs; shorter passes are fine IF they are for first down yardage. The critical concept I value in the passing game is that since it IS riskier, the potential reward should be proportionate. Since the chance of losing the ball on any one pass play is 2-3 times higher than on a run, it's only worth if a SUCCESSFUL play instantly and by itself either:

1) Moves the chains,
2) Puts the team in FG range and/or
3) Scores a TD.

With all that in mind, unless teams are blitzing every down (which they're welcome to do if we're running 60% of the time) and/or our line is completely incapable of pass blocking, I'm not sure how important it really is to hit those quick slants/outs/crossing patterns. The MOST important thing there is to NOT throw picks, because otherwise the half dozen short passes we throw probably won't be pivotal anyway; they rarely gain enough yards for a first down, rarely score, and even the best QBs will miss one or two of them a game. Are we really talking about benching a QB over 4 passes that probably won't get 30 yards in the whole game?

Consistent success with what I just described requires an offense with more experience, and probably more talent than ours--but so does any offensive strategy. The main thing unique about the above approach is what was unique about the old T QBs: Dual threat talent. Fortunately, such QBs are increasingly common in the NFL; the only difference is that 70 years ago the NFL was a running League demanding ever more passing ability from QBs, and now it is a passing League demanding ever more RUNNING ability from them.

It's right and reasonable to expect Tebow to pass accurately from the pocket, but that is NOT the same as expecting him to be a pocket passer, which is undesirable whether he can do it or not. The pocket passer is dead; Troy Aikmans double concussion season killed it. Look around the League and how many really effective pocket passers are there? Basically, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady; even ELI Manning is a dangerous runner from time to time, of necessity. Unless you can put together a line like the Colts and Pats, you can't keep a pocket passer on his feet, and even if you do you'll probably be forced to trade some run blocking to get five elite pass blockers. Aaron Rodgers is the prototypical modern passer--he was also the leading rusher in last nights game against NY.

Short form: Screw short passes; yds+pts-pick sixes>completion percentage. Which Broncos QBs have been really GOOD pocket passers, especially short, since Elway left? Griese and Orton; couldn't keep 'em upright. ;)

Thanks for the thoughtful post, but I disagree with most of it. You absolutely need short passes in the NFL to really be successful- not only because it sets you up with 2nd or 3rd and very manageable situations, but because it also sets up the deep passes down the field once defenders start creeping up. Screens, and quick WR shots would really open up a new dimension. More importantly, have you seen our 3rd down success rate this season? Anytime it's 3rd and 8 and you need to either rely on a deep bomb to Thomas or Tebow scrambling to be successful is not a convincing argument, even in theory. In fact, I'd argue that Tom Brady makes his living making those baby throws.

This isn't to say that the option game supplemented by deep balls by a scrambling Tebow should be abandoned; in fact, that is his game and he is good at it, but we also got humiliated by every single team we played this season that one could reasonably call elite.

Finally, I'm really not sure what you mean with regard to pocket passers. Virtually all QBs in this league are "pocket passers" including many more elite and emerging ones you didn't mention (like Brees, Stafford, etc). Just because a QB runs once in a while when the defense doesn't have anyone within 15 yards of him is not enough to say they aren't "pocket passers."

[wayninja]

I just read some post from Ziggy in another thread...there are a whole lot of Bronco fans on here that could learn a thing or two from him.

BTW-My initial post was in response to the thread and a few Bronco fans agreed with me.Others chose to get personal and were allowed to so I reacted..anyway that's all I have to say to you about this post.

The thread is 'what are the broncos', not 'how close did KC or Oak get to beating you out'. If you want to take calling that out as a personal attack on you, that's your choice.

Also, if you don't see why some would take issue with that here and now, you are just being willfully stubborn.

[KCL]

The thread is 'what are the broncos', not 'how close did KC or Oak get to beating you out'. If you want to take calling that out as a personal attack on you, that's your choice.

Also, if you don't see why some would take issue with that here and now, you are just being willfully stubborn.

whatever! I responded to the thread and some agreed with me and others chose to get their shorts in a bunch about it.The others turned this on me and called me a troll...so be it..I don't CARE!

[topscribe]

whatever! I responded to the thread and some agreed with me and others chose to get their shorts in a bunch about it.The others turned this on me and called me a troll...so be it..I don't CARE!

I think some people exist on these boards with the express purpose of
trolling and flaming other posters. Don't let it get to you. I think the vast
majority of this board recognizes you as one classy lady. :)

[KCL]

Let me try this..The Broncos showed a lot of improvement as the season went on.With some off season work,adjustments,changes they could very well be back in first again and win the division like they did this past season.

Yeah I know the loss hurt,they always do..we as football fans all know this!

I think Tebow has a good chance of becoming a great QB.He is a very driven person and doesn't have any quit in him.

It will be interesting to see if Denver chooses to keep him as their starter.

[KCL]

I think some people exist on these boards with the express purpose of
trolling and flaming other posters. Don't let it get to you. I think the vast
majority of this board recognizes you as one classy lady. :)

Thanks top! Some on here don't know me and choose to dislike me and others have gotten to know me and we get along very well.It is what it is.

[Joel]

Joel, first of all, good post. I agree in that passing is always going to be riskier than running, so that should mean that the reward should at least be commensurate with the risk; to you, short passes that don't at least move the chains is not worth the risk.

I've read similar thoughts years ago. I believe the Coryell system is based on similar principles ... power running and deep to mid passing. Walsh used what we call the WCO because it could operate with less talented players.

In theory, rushing for the shorter gains and passing for the longer gains sounds good. The reality, though, is that a lot of times, defenses can dictate what they give the offense. Case in point, the Pats playoff game.

The Pats were very effective neutralizing the rush, and they were also able to get through to the passer very quickly. There was no time for the deep pass, and the rushing was well contained. That equated to stalled drives.

In order for that theoretical scheme to work, you'd have to have superior linemen who would not only win their battles for rushing, but also be superior in their pass protection. You'd need receivers who can not only win their battles with the CBs, but with safety help too. Because the passes are longer, protection has to hold better.

It's not about having great completion percentage numbers; it's about giving yourself the best chance to score, and part of that is keeping drives alive. In today's NFL, the short pass is a critical component, and the risks associated with it are necessary. QBs just have to get good at executing it; it should be second nature, the way it is for Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Ryan, Roethlisberger ... really, any consistent offense.

Even Norv's version of the Coryell has some WCO flavor in it for the short passes to the TEs. The short pass is necessary, and it can also be a tough to defend weapon. No ifs or buts about it, all NFL QBs must have this basic weapon in their arsenal. It's practically how Brady made his living his first few seasons as a pro, and he continues to use it even more now with his 2 TEs and Welker. He used it to romp the Broncos. Rodgers uses it efficiently to score TDs, like he did with one of the earlier scoring drives against the Giants.
You do need great offensive linemen, but you need them to get double digit regular season wins and Championships, too. If your line can't get it done, you are dead in the water, unable to gain yards running OR passing. If they can, you can run to establish the pass until defences are forced to stack the box with eight or nine guys, then hit open receivers deep, because they can't man cover three or four receivers downfield AND provide safety help over the top AND put eight or nine guys on the line. I agree it's hard to beat the 4-4-4 defence; that's why the League won't let teams use it.

There are nuances to the approach I advocate, and one of them is that the QB must be a legit rushing threat, so those eight man lines can't just key on the running back, especially in natural running situations. It helps to have a back the whole defence will follow left like GB did when we faked a handoff to Terrell Davis in the Super Bowl, but you still need a guy who can trot to the RIGHT corner of the endzone like Elway. Effectively running the offense I want means being able to run your QB OR RB out of shotgun formations with 3 WRs and a slot TE, all of whom can block their counterparts.

Sometimes you must take what the defence allows, yes, though any offense that allows the D to decide what's allowed unwisely concedes inititiative and paints itself into a corner. Offense works by keeping defence guessing, retaining initiative and setting game tempo, and fails miserably when it lets the defence do those things. However, the main thing here is that as the short spread passing attack predominates ever more defences are concentrating more on stopping it, and the best defensive coaches already know you can't stop a quick out or a screen with a blitz. Consider this NFL.com article on the remarkable way Wade Phillips transformed the Texans D from one of the worst to one of the best in only a year:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8250cba9/article/defensive-overhaul-carries-texans-to-first-playoff-berth

In particular, note this part:

Running a traditional 3-4 set, Phillips will throw pressure at the quarterback -- usually in the form of three down linemen plus at least two additional rushers (LBs or DBs) -- but he backs that up with a tight man-to-man coverage in the secondary. The goal is simple: Get the quarterback down or force him to throw into coverage.
That can and has given many offenses trouble, but is especially suited to stop short spread passing games, because it uses the 3-4 LB corps the way it should: Not just as blitzers and run stoppers, but legit coverage men who can deflect--or intercept--short passes over the middle (in the heart of LB Country) or to the sidelines. It doesn't present heavy blitzes, because half the LBs cover those quick blitz-beaters.

Traditionally, LBs do limited pass coverage because very few have both the size/strength needed to runstop AND the speed/hands to cover receivers downfield. With short spread passing most receivers don't run downfield; LBs can fill short zones to stop quick outs and slants while letting the CBs and a safety or two worry about the one or two receviers going deep. Send three or four receivers downfield, however, and that's impossible.

To say that the pocket passer is dead is way off. People have been trying to say that for years, but in the end, passing is the main attribute the QB must have to fully utilize all the weapons in his offense. A QB who has a run first mentality will not see the different opportunities all around the field. Just look what Rodgers can do.

What superior, consistent offense right now uses a QB who thinks run first? Mobility is an asset for a QB, but it's used more wisely only to buy him more time and a better angle to complete a pass. Tebow is not comfortable in the pocket, so when he feels a little pressure, he has the urge to either rush or break from the pocket. That in itself makes it more difficult for the OL to block for him.

Brady, both Mannings, Rivers, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Roethlisberger ... these are the QBs for the most consistent offenses. They are excellent pocket passers, and they all execute short passes efficiently. None of them need, or even try, to rush; they only do so opportunistically. Cam is changing the game, because he's excellent at both pocket passing and rushing.

Tebow knows what he has to learn, and if he doesn't, he will limit effectivity of the offense.
This is completely counter to the previous part of your post, where you argued heavy pass rushes prevent a passing attack focused on the long ball. You won't always have the protection to throw a 40 yarder, but if you rarely have time to throw even a 10 yarder, and are forced to makes passes of 5 yards or less, you have NO pocket, and the pocket passer is truly dead. If a QB is throwing the ball the moment he takes the snap, whether or not he does it from directly behind center is largely irrelevant; he's not "standing in the pocket" because there isn't one, and thus he cannot safely STAND anywhere.

Brady, both Mannings, Rivers, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Roethlisberger... Brady, Peyton and Brees are legit pocket passers (so I guess there ARE three who don't suck,) but have lines who give them legit pockets. Eli runs when he has to, which is more often than he'd like, and often gets first downs doing it. Rodgers and Reothlisberger may not be run first, but are certainly run willing and capable; Rodgers was the leading rusher in the Giants/Packers game, averaging almost 10 yds per carry and picking up a TD. Rivers and Ryan only look good until they reach the postseason; their playoff records are pretty unenviable. With the exception of Brady, Peyton and Brees, all the QBs you listed frequently NEED to rush, and the successful ones not only can but, in the case of Rodgers and Roethlisberger, are often eager to do so.

Cam Newton isn't changing the game; if anyone did that it was Steve Young, Randall Cunningham and, yes, even John Elway, who were succeeded by guys like Steve McNair, Donovan McNabb and Michael Vick. They all had to be good passers first, but what made them elite in their prime was that they were just as devastating running, which is why they could and did deliberately run, even when the pass rush wasn't getting to them. The main difference now is there are a lot more good running QBs who can also pass from the pocket, making them very difficult to defend: If you come after them they throw it over your head, and if you stay back they run for 20 yards. It's a good approach, but trying it with a short passing game makes the defences job a lot easier: They can just camp out eight or nine guys within five yards of the line knowing 90% of your plays will come to them, even the passes, and the other 10% can be handled by a pair of fast CBs to deal with the one or two receivers going deep, aided over the top by a savvy safety playing centerfield.

Make them defend the whole field against 6 eligible receivers and you force them to do their very difficult job. When you reach the goal line and they see your QB go left while your RB goes right, they have a BIG problem.


Thanks for the thoughtful post, but I disagree with most of it. You absolutely need short passes in the NFL to really be successful- not only because it sets you up with 2nd or 3rd and very manageable situations, but because it also sets up the deep passes down the field once defenders start creeping up. Screens, and quick WR shots would really open up a new dimension. More importantly, have you seen our 3rd down success rate this season? Anytime it's 3rd and 8 and you need to either rely on a deep bomb to Thomas or Tebow scrambling to be successful is not a convincing argument, even in theory. In fact, I'd argue that Tom Brady makes his living making those baby throws.
On 3rd and 8 you throw a 10 yard pass, which is the minimum distance I want to throw most passes anyway. Although, the critical factor there is that a pass should be at least for first down distance to justify the risk; if it's 3rd and 4 a 5 yard pass provides that justification just as much as a 30 yard pass, and is far more likely to be complete.

But the thing is, in terms of reaching manageable third downs, passing doesn't contribute much more than running, certainly not in light of the fact that it carries 2.5 to 3 times more risk. The critical question is:

Does an additional 2.5 yards per play justify 2.5 TIMES more turnovers, at the line of scrimmage?

The 2011 NFL average yards per pass attempt was about 6.7, the average rush 4.2, and 70% of turnovers are on passes, so that really is the question we're asking. I contend the answer is "not only no, but HELL, no!"

We can't compare JUST successful short passes to ALL runs--long TDs, first downs, League average 4.2 yards, a yard or two, tackled for a loss, or fumbles. We have to compare ALL runs to ALL short passes, which includes incompletes, sacks and interceptions. When we do that we find we've multiplied the risk of a turnover by 2.5 (and that's if we count sack-fumbles and fumbled catches as "runs") soley to increase our yards per play by 2.5. Words cannot state how much that isn't worth it. Is 2nd and 8 better than 2nd and 10? Is 2nd and 11 better than 2nd and 17? And the real core question: Is 2nd and 6 2.5 times worse than 2nd and 3?

This isn't to say that the option game supplemented by deep balls by a scrambling Tebow should be abandoned; in fact, that is his game and he is good at it, but we also got humiliated by every single team we played this season that one could reasonably call elite.
The option is garbage we'd largely abandoned prior to the NE rematch, which probably killed it for good. I want to run the QB half as many times as the RB, but ALL runs should be CALLED. Running isn't like passing, where you can send lots of guys on different routes then pick whoever finds a coverage gap. When we run, we should COMMIT, pre-snap, to a course of action where every offensive player knows their clearly defined task.

Finally, I'm really not sure what you mean with regard to pocket passers. Virtually all QBs in this league are "pocket passers" including many more elite and emerging ones you didn't mention (like Brees, Stafford, etc). Just because a QB runs once in a while when the defense doesn't have anyone within 15 yards of him is not enough to say they aren't "pocket passers."
When I say, "pocket passers," I do NOT mean guys who pass primarily from the pocket: I mean guys who can ONLY pass from the pocket, incapable of not only called runs but even scrambling when the pocket breaks down, even if it's just to buy time for someone to get open.

Aaron Rodgers is not a pocket passer, though he's very good in the pocket. Neither is Ben Roethlisberger (who really isn't much better than Tebow in the pocket, though he's dangerous on bootlegs.) Tom Brady is a pocket passer; as many noted coming into last weeks game, you can screw him up just by bumping him fairly regularly, even if you never sack him. Peyton Manning is a pocket passer; take away his line or Bradys and they'll both look like--I started to say Tebow but, no, they wouldn't even look that good; they'd go down in a heap 10 yards behind the line or throw a pop fly pick. Every time. Troy Aikman was an elite pocket passer, but as soon as Dallas' line lost the ability to make him untouchable his career ended after Jerry Jones released him (because Jerry Jones is a first class :censored:) at the end of a two concussion season.

The TRUE pocket passer is dead; unless you have a solid wall of Pro Bowlers to protect him he cannot survive against modern pass rushes, especially those from 3-4 OLBs. Yet the rise of short spread passing has not only made the 3-4 more than a Pittsburgh fad, it's increasingly encouraging good defensive coaches old enough to remember what REAL 3-4 OLBs look like to find new ones. The 3-4 OLB is a rare and scary individual who does more than just make charging tackles: He has the speed and hands to cover checkdown men in the short passing game, too. The only way to beat that passing is to go deeper.

[nflfan]

Joel, no offense, but there's a difference between theoretical and practical.

In theory, ofcourse every team would want their OL to win their battles, every team wants their QB to be able to do everything great, every running back is dominant and every wide receiver is dominant. The reality, though, is that only the elite players are built that way, and few teams are fortunate not just to have them, but to afford keeping them.

Your definition of the pocket passer is outdated. Even the least mobile quarterbacks, like Brady, are mobile enough to buy himself time within and outside of the pocket. All of the quarterbacks I've listed are pocket passers, because they are comfortable reading defenses from the pocket and making every pass from the pocket; that they can make passes outside of the pocket, or even gain yards by foot does not exclude them from being pocket passers. The way Aaron Rodgers get his rushing yards is far, far different than the way Tebow gets his. Defenses respect Rodgers' passing ability, and that sometimes allows him opportunities to run; defenses respect Tebow's rushing ability, the way they would a wildcat runningback, and they play him similarly.

There is nothing contratry in my argument of defenses not giving the quarterback time to complete deep passes. The reality is the pocket can definitely break, even with the best OL, and that's why it's important to have the short, quick passes, and these passes have worked. It's part of their design. It's reality.

Tebow, specifically, is not comfortable reading defenses from the pocket, and making all the throws he needs from the pocket. His instinct is as a rusher first ... an option QB, like a wildcat QB/RB. If he wants to keep that mentality, that's fine. He just has to get good at executing the passes every NFL QB routinely makes. If he can do this, then maybe your dream scenario will come true. Truth is, most running QBs become better when their mindset changes and they start thinking pass first ... then they see the opportunities in the whole field, instead of only what's immediately in front of them.

Tebow cannot be a one trick pony; he cannot afford to have shortcomings in his passing ability that would effectively prevent him from making routine NFL QB throws consistently, as that would also greatly limit the effectivity of the offense. Some fans like to complain about McCoy's playcalling, but the truth is, he stuck with Tebow's strength. Fox said that if they ran a regular offense with Tebow, they'd be screwed. There's a real reason for that comment that fans should understand, no matter how enamored they are with Tebow.

Today, their are only 2 QBs in the league who force defenses to respect their rushing and passing ability ... Cam and Vick. Cam is very comfortable throwing passes from the pocket, and very confident in his reads. Vick was transformed by Andy Reid.

Fans like to say Tebow will succeed, because he always puts in hard work. Good, now don't limit him with low expectations. Expect Tebow to work hard with Elway to be able to make all the throws an NFL QB should make, and see the full potential of the offense. For your scenario, you want the best linemen and the best receivers ... you should want the best QB.